1. Introduction
The present study investigates code-switching (CS), the concurrent use of more than one language in a conversation, commonly observed in bilingual speech. Under the assumption that CS is not random but subject to universal principles [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9], just like monolingual grammars, this study provides a grammatical account of CS, with particular emphasis on OV~VO variation in two typologically similar language pairs, Korean-English (KE) and Japanese-English (JE), which exhibit a number of interesting features that need to be explained. Due to their canonical word order difference, Korean and Japanese being SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) and English SVO (Subject-Verb-Object), a code-switched sentence can take, in principle, either OV or VO order, both of which are attested in the KE and JE CS literature [
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17]. One immediate question that arises is how these two orders, OV and VO, are distributed in code-switched utterances. To account for OV~VO variation in CS, several researchers have proposed similar structural analyses based on the head parameter, whose main claim is summarized in (1).
1. | The language of the verb determines the position of the object in both monolingual and bilingual contexts [5,6,7]. |
Under this view, it is predicted that when the verb comes from an OV language, such as Korean or Japanese, the order would be OV. On the other hand, if the verb were provided from a VO language like English, VO order would be obtained. The KE and JE CS examples in (2) and (3) seem to confirm this prediction.
2. | a. | Wonderful ideas-lul | manhi | naynoh-un | kes | kath-ayo |
| | -acc | a lot | present-rel | thing | seem-decl |
| | ‘(They) seem to present many wonderful ideas’ | [17] (p. 121) |
|
| b. | Only small prizes moratta-ne |
| | get.past |
| | ‘(We) got only small prizes’ | [14] (p. 128) |
|
3. | a. | I like koki. Koki’s good |
| | meat |
| | ‘I like meat. Meat’s good’ | [10] (p. 886) |
|
| b. | We never knew anna koto nanka |
| | such thing sarcasm |
| | ‘We never knew such a thing as sarcasm’ | [13] (p. 76) |
In (2), the verb comes from either Korean (
naynoh ‘present’ in (2a)) or Japanese (
moratta ‘got’ in (2b)), and the word order is OV, as predicted by (1). In contrast, in the examples in (3) where the verb is from English (
like in (3a) and
knew in (3b)), the resulting word order is VO. However, the proposal in (1) fails to account for the word order in (4), where the verb comes from English (
apply in (4a) and
mark in (4b)). According to (1), VO order is predicted, but the surface order is OV.
4. | a. | assistantship apply hay | noh-ass-eyo |
| | | do.lnk | put-past-decl |
| | ‘(I) applied for an assistantship’ | [17] (p. 189) |
|
| b. | one algebra question-o mark-shite | |
| | | -acc -do | |
| | ‘(You) mark one algebra question’ | [15] (p. 135) |
The limitations of the head parameter approach to CS were noticed by Chan [
1,
2], who proposes an alternative account to capture a broader range of cross-linguistic CS data. Chan notes that the problematic cases that do not seem to be justified by (1) involve light verbs. He calls constructions of the type in (4) ‘mixed compound verbs’, where the complex verb consists of a host verb (
apply and
mark) and a light verb (
ha and
su), coming from different languages. Based on his observations, Chan proposes the following:
5. | The complex verb of the light verb constructions behaves the same way as a simplex or a compound verb from the language of the light verb. |
Chan’s hypothesis correctly predicts the OV order of the code-switched utterances in (4): the light verb comes from either Korean or Japanese, which are OV languages, and the complex verbs,
apply-ha in (4a) and
mark-su in (4b), follow the grammar of the light verb, resulting in OV order. However, as Chan has himself acknowledged, whether these complex verbs are genuine compounds is controversial. For example, (sentential) negation,
an ‘not’, can intervene between the lexical verb,
apply, and the Korean light verb,
ha, as shown in (6a). In fact, the only possible position of the negation marker,
an, is between the two verbs,
apply and
ha: it cannot precede the verb,
apply, as in (6b).
6. | a. | assistantship apply an | hay | noh-ass-eyo |
| | | neg | do.lnk | put-past-decl |
| | ‘(I) did not apply for an assistantship’ |
|
| b. | * assistantship an apply hay | noh-ass-eyo |
| | | neg | do.lnk | put-past-decl |
The placement of
an with respect to the lexical verb,
apply, in KE CS in (6) contrasts with that in (7), where two verbs,
ssip ‘chew’ and
mek ‘eat’, form a compound and the negation marker,
an, cannot appear between them. The example in (7) from Korean is called a serial verb construction, in which two verbs form a single predicate and share the argument structure. This disproves Chan’s claim that the complex verb of the light verb constructions functions similar to a compound verb in the language of the light verb.
7. | a. | Kibo-ka | kimchi-lul | an | ssip-e | mek-ess-ta |
| | -nom | kimchi-acc | neg | chew-lnk | eat-past-decl |
| | ‘Kibo did not chew-and-eat kimchi’ |
|
| b. | * Kibo-ka | kimchi-lul | ssip-e | an | mek-ess-ta |
| | -nom | kimchi-acc | chew-lnk | neg | eat-past-decl |
Additionally, Chan’s prediction that the verbal complex in light verb constructions obeys the grammar of the language of the light verb is not always borne out. In (8), the verb comes from English,
catch in (8a) and
keep in (8b), and the light verb is selected from either Korean,
ha in (8a), or Japanese,
su in (8b). Yet, the sentences exhibit the English-style VO order, not the grammar of the language of the light verb.
8. | a. | catch up cold ha-myen |
| | do-if |
| | ‘If (you) catch a cold…’ | [17] (p. 136) |
|
| b. | yooshi | keep an eye suru-zo |
| | well I’m going to | do-prt |
| | ‘Well, I’m really going to keep an eye on you’ | [12] (p. 24) |
Chan treats examples such as (8) as exceptions whose word order is not predicted by (5). He reasons that corpus data for CS between OV and VO languages show that the VO sequence in light verb constructions in CS is rarer than the OV pattern in a similar environment, and does not offer an account of the unexpected VO pattern. However, the less frequent occurrence of VO order per se does not justify his decision to consider them as not being subject to universal principles. The CS literature clearly shows that both OV and VO patterns exist in various OV-VO language pairs (e.g., Hindi-English, Punjabi-English, Tamil-English, and so on) and OV~VO variation in CS should be accounted for. Although Chan’s analysis fails to correctly account for OV~VO variation documented in the CS corpus data, he rightly points out that the code-switched sentences varying between OV and VO order involve a light verb in diverse language pairs, which was not noticed in previous research.
Shim [
8] analyzes KE and JE CS corpus data and suggests that the OV and VO contrast is closely related to the
heavy vs. light distinction of the verb within the code-switched constituent: while the verbs in (4),
apply and
mark, are
heavy in the sense that they deliver full semantic information to their clausal structure, those in (8),
catch and
keep, are
light and have little semantic content of their own but only deliver aspectual information. In addition, Shim also postulates that OV~VO variation in CS could also be related to the compositionality of the code-switched phrase: the verb and the internal argument are code-switched into English separately in (4), without changing the OV order of Korean or Japanese. On the other hand, idioms such as
catch a cold or
keep an eye (on) in (8) may be listed in the lexicon and switched as a chunk, maintaining the VO order of English. The two hypotheses, namely, selection of light verbs and idiomaticity, were tested against the judgments solicited from a small number of KE and JE bilingual speakers, and the following conclusions were made in Shim.
9. | a. | Selection of light verbs results in OV~VO variation in both non-idiomatic (literal) phrases and compositional idioms. More specifically, when light verbs are selected from Korean or Japanese, OV is generated, following the grammar of Korean or Japanese. On the contrary, selection of English light verbs results in the English-style VO order in the derivation. |
| b. | Compositional idioms undergo aspectual composition, similar to non-idiomatic phrases, while non-compositional idioms do not undergo aspectual composition in the syntactic derivation. |
| c. | Non-compositional idioms undergo code-switching as a unit, and the internal order of the code-switched phrase is maintained throughout the derivation. |
Although (9) seems to correctly describe OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS, several questions arise regarding the design of the study and the analyses provided. First, the distinction between heavy and light verbs and also between light verbs and light verb constructions needs to be clarified. Failure to provide a clear distinction between light verbs and light verb constructions resulted in the mis-categorization of the verb in a few instances in the study. For instance, the verb catch in the phrase catch a cold was analyzed as a light verb, based on the assumption that the verb does not have its manner component, and thus conveys less idiosyncratic lexical meaning of its own. However, the verb catch clearly plays a role in determining the aspect of the phrase catch a cold, along with the object, which is distinguished from keep an eye, for instance, in which the aspectual properties of the verb phrase are not decided by the verb keep and its complement combined. Instead the aspectual constitution of keep an eye is the same as that of the corresponding ‘simple’ verb construction, in which the light verb’s complement is used as the verb, (to) eye.
Also, the notion of compositionality of idioms, which Shim adopts, has been contested by a number of researchers despite the fact that it is widely cited for studies on idioms. According to Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow [
18], idioms are divided into two groups based on their semantic compositionality. Most idioms (e.g.,
take advantage of,
pull strings) are in fact relatively ‘compositional’ in the sense that the idiomatic reading is composed fairly transparently from the sub-parts of the idiom. ‘Non-compositional’ idioms (e.g.,
kick the bucket,
shoot the breeze), on the other hand, do not compose their meanings from those of their components, but the idiomatic meaning is assigned to the whole phrase. Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow propose that, while compositional idioms have the syntax of non-idiomatic expressions, non-compositional idioms are stored in the lexicon as complete phrases [
18] (p. 497, 515). Following their proposal, Shim [
8] argues that compositional idioms and non-compositional idioms are predicted to behave differently in CS and derive different word orders: while compositional idioms are not frozen as a chunk and their internal arguments are subject to CS, just like non-idiomatic/literal phrases, non-compositional idioms are listed in the lexicon and undergo CS as a whole.
However, the distinction between compositional and non-compositional (or similarly, decomposable
vs. non-decomposable) idioms does not hold uniformly among researchers [
19,
20,
21,
22]. While the view on the semantic properties of idioms varies to a large extent from researcher to researcher, it seems that the syntactic behavior of idioms is less of a contentious issue. Researchers converge on the view that idiomatic expressions can be categorized into three groups based on their syntactic behavior: syntactically fully flexible, less flexible, and frozen, as shown by the examples in (10)–(12), taken from Horn [
22] and Schenk [
23]. The symbol # indicates the sentence is grammatical, but the idiomatic reading is unavailable.
10. | a. | Care was taken care of all of the orphans |
| b. | Great care seemed to be taken of the refugees by the government |
| c. | The care that they took of the infants was more than adequate |
| d. | How much care did they take of the infants? |
|
11. | a. | The beans were spilled (by Stefanie) |
| b. | The beans appeared to be spilled when he opened his mouth |
| c. | # The beans that Joe spilled caused us a lot of trouble |
| d. | # Which beans did Joe spill? |
|
12. | a. | # The bucket was kicked by all of the bad guys |
| b. | # The bucket seems to be kicked by John |
| c. | # The bucket John kicked was astonishing |
| d. | # Which bucket did John kick? |
In (10), the idiom
take care of undergoes various syntactic operations such as passivization (10a), raising (10b), relativization (10c), and
wh-question formation (10d). On the other hand,
spill the beans may partake only in a limited number of syntactic operations such as passivization (11a) and raising (11b), and the idiomatic interpretation is no longer available in (11c) and (11d). In contrast, the degree of syntactic flexibility of
kick the bucket is heavily restricted, thus none of the sentences in (12) delivers its figurative reading ‘die’. Although speakers may vary in the extent to which they accept each sentence in (10) through (12) under an idiomatic reading, it is clear that the degree of syntactic flexibility varies from idiom to idiom, which in turn suggests that, while some idioms may be derived in the syntax, others may not. In light of these considerations, new working definitions of light verbs and light verb constructions, and VP (Verb Phrase) idioms are provided below (For a detailed description of LVs and LVCs, see
Section 2).
13. | a. | A Light Verb (LV) never has idiosyncratic lexical meaning of its own, but only lexicalizes an abstract functional head. |
|
| b. | In a Light Verb Construction (LVC), the verb itself does not contribute any lexical semantic information and the semantic meaning of the verbal phrase comes from its complement. Both heavy and light verbs may participate in LVCs. |
|
14. | The term VP idiom refers to a VP in which the verb takes an object and the two together deliver a non-literal, idiosyncratic reading. |
Departing from the assumption that linguistic parameterization is attributed to the morpho-syntactic contents of
functional categories, not those of lexical roots [
24,
25], the role of functional or light verbs in mixed verb constructions in KE and JE CS was investigated in the present study. In comparison with that of lexical or heavy verbs, the role of functional or light verbs was tested against 28 KE and 8 JE bilingual speakers’ introspective judgments of the CS patterns, which were presented to them in the form of a questionnaire. In addition, this study also investigates various idiomatic expressions in English and how they contribute to word order variation in KE and JE CS. The two research questions addressed in the study are provided below.
15. | a. | What is a role of light verbs in CS? How is OV~VO variation in CS related to the choice between light verbs and heavy or lexical verbs? |
| b. | Does syntactic flexibility play a role in deriving word order in CS? Are both syntactically flexible and less flexible phrases subject to CS? |
These two research questions were explored in an experimental study on KE and JE CS, and the following hypotheses were formulated based on the results from a pilot study conducted by Shim [
8].
16. | a. | Assuming that word order is determined by feature specifications on a functional category, not a lexical category, feature specifications on an LV in Korean, Japanese, and English and how these features are valued in syntactic derivations may determine word order in CS. More specifically, the choice between functional or light verbs and lexical or heavy verbs is expected to result in different word order. |
| b. | Syntactically flexible phrases and inflexible phrases will behave differently with respect to word order derivation in CS. More specifically, while the internal argument of the syntactically flexible phrase can be switched, the syntactically inflexible phrase is frozen and undergoes CS as a unit. Hence, the internal order of the phrase is maintained throughout the derivation. |
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows.
Section 2 examines LVs and LVCs in the languages of investigation, English, Korean, and Japanese, based on which the new definitions of LVs and LVCs in (13) were proposed. In addition, a syntactic analysis of LVs in these three languages is proposed.
Section 3 presents an experimental study consisting of three interrelated tasks that elicited judgment data from Korean-English and Japanese-English bilingual speakers to explore the two research questions listed in (15). Task 1 was a code-switching judgment task that focused on word order distinctions (
i.e., OV
versus VO) in code-switched utterances. Task 2 and Task 3 tested the participants’ judgments on syntactic flexibility and meanings of idioms, respectively. The
v-Asp structure for English, Korean, and Japanese proposed in
Section 2 is further developed under the F
eature I
nheritance system in the framework of the Minimalist Program in
Section 4, based on which the OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS is accounted for.
Section 5 concludes the paper.
4. Mixed Verb Constructions in Code-Switching
The overall outcome of the experimental study on KE and JE CS supports the hypothesis that the selection between English HVs and LVs within a code-switched phrase would lead to OV~VO variation. However, this difference was only observed in phrases involving a literal interpretation and in LVCs, but not in phrases with non-literal/idiomatic interpretations. Given these results, I propose a grammatical account of OV~VO variations in KE and JE CS within the framework of the Minimalist Program, especially based upon the feature inheritance system developed by Shim [
9].
In
Section 2.3., I proposed the underlying structure for deriving OV and VO order in KE and JE CS, shown in (24), where the respective LVs (Korean
ha and Japanese
su) lexicalize
v with the EPP feature, in contrast to English LVs, which merge under Asp. Prior to discussing how (24) accounts for the results from the CS judgment task, I begin with a consideration of key theoretical assumptions.
One of the key concepts is F
eature I
nheritance (FI henceforth), primarily proposed for the C(omp)-T(ense) domain by Chomsky [
68,
69]. In Shim [
9], I further extended and applied FI to the
v-Asp domain, parallel to C-T, and developed it into a fully-fledged mechanism that accounts for various theoretical issues such as word order and Case/case. I argue that, how the EPP properties are encoded in the feature geometry on C and
v, and how these features, including the EPP, are valued in C-T and
v-Asp domains, are the source for parametric variations, including word order in both monolingual and bilingual grammars.
Chomsky [
70] considers C, T, and
v to be core functional categories, but the probing features (or Agree or edge features in Chomsky’s term) and the EPP feature belong to phase heads only, C and
v (p. 102). T inherently lacks these features and its probing and EPP features are inherited from C, the phase head, via FI. As a result, T serves as a probe at the phase level CP. Analogous to the C-T relation, I propose that
v selects a functional category, Asp, and transmits its probing features to Asp via FI. Thus, all probing features on Asp are inherited from its selecting phase head,
v. The structure in (32) illustrates FI from
v to Asp in Korean and Japanese, proposed in Shim [
9].
- (i)
feature matching between Asp and OBJ: [uϕ, uCaseEPP] are valued
- (ii)
feature matching between v and V: [uAspEPP] is valued
In (32), Asp inherits [uϕ, uCaseEPP] from v, after which it enters into a probe-goal relationship with the object. The feature [uCaseEPP] on Asp triggers movement of the maximal projection of a goal with the corresponding feature, and the object raises to Spec, AspP, delivering OV order within AspP. Then, the entire AspP raises to Spec, vP, resulting in OV-ha order in Korean and OV-su order in Japanese.
The structure in (32) will also be used as a basic templet for OV-ha/su order in KE and JE CS. Yet, we will see that there are cases in which FI from v = haKR/suJP to Asp is blocked, and the object fails to undergo movement to Spec, AspP when a lexical category is inserted in Asp, preventing Asp from being a beneficiary of FI. This is precisely when English LVs are merged directly under Asp as lexical roots. As a result, object raising does not occur whenever an English LV is merged under Asp, deriving VO-ha/su order in KE and JE CS. Thus, OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS is explained as a result of object raising to Spec, AspP; when object shift occurs, OV order is derived within AspP. If the object stays in situ, VO is derived. Regardless of object shift, the entire AspP always raises to Spec, vP whenever v is Korean or Japanese, and the surface word order would be either OV-ha/su or VO-ha/su in KE and JE CS. All these movements are a consequence of feature checking and EPP specification on a functional head, as assumed in the Minimalist Program.
In the following sub-sections (
Section 4.1,
Section 4.2,
Section 4.3,
Section 4.4,
Section 4.5 and
Section 4.6), I will provide a FI-based account of OV and VO order in
ha/
su LVCs in KE and JE CS, a finding based on the CS judgment task reported in
Section 3.1.
Section 4.1,
Section 4.2,
Section 4.3,
Section 4.4,
Section 4.5 and
Section 4.6 provide a descriptive analysis of OV~VO variation in KE and JE CS. For a detailed discussion of the mechanisms and operations of FI and derivational accounts of OV and VO word order variation, readers are asked to refer to previous work by Shim [
9].
4.1. OV with an English Heavy Verb in Literal Interpretation
In the code-switched phrase in which an English HV takes an object with a literal interpretation, such as miss the bus, OV order was strongly preferred (the percentage of VO occurrence was 22% for KE CS and 19% for JE CS). The structure in (33) represents the underlying structure for the phrase miss the bus, for instance, which was favored in OV order in KE and JE CS.
The null-headed Asp does not bear any formal features of its own, and is selected by v = haKR/suJP, a Case-checking LV with EPP specifications in Korean/Japanese. Via FI, Asp is endowed with [uϕ, uCaseEPP] from v = haKR/suJP and agrees with the object bearing the matching features. The object raises to Spec, AspP caused by the EPP property of [uCase] on Asp, delivering OV order within AspP. AspP further raises to Spec, vP, as a result of which OV-ha and OV-su orders are derived in KE and JE CS, respectively.
4.2. VO with an English Heavy Verb in Non-Literal Interpretation
While OV order was strongly preferred when an English HV was included in a phrase with a literal interpretation, VO order was favored when an English HV takes an object in non-literal or idiomatic interpretations (i.e., miss the boat meaning ‘miss the opportunity’) in KE and JE CS (66% and 63%, respectively). Since the same set of English verbs were included in both literal and non-literal interpretations, the OV~VO contrast between them can be only explained by the fact that object shift occurs in literal interpretations, while it fails to occur in non-literal interpretations. What prevents the object from raising to Spec, AspP in non-literal interpretations?
Similar to (33), the null Asp head may inherit [
uϕ,
uCase
EPP] from
v =
haKR/suJP via FI and trigger object shift in (34). Yet, the object may resist being extracted out of the VP due to the fact that the VP of a non-literal interpretation (or the VP idiom) is not as flexible as that of a VP with a literal interpretation, as confirmed in the results from the syntactic flexibility judgment task: as shown in
Figure 4, the idioms (HV, Non-Lit and LV, Non-Lit) were judged by all three speaker groups as being syntactically less flexible than the non-idiomatic expressions (HV, LVC and LV, LVC).
Suppose that the object cannot be extracted out of the VP due to the syntactic inflexibility of the VP. The EPP property on Asp still needs to be satisfied; otherwise, the derivation crashes in (34). FI is designed to value uninterpretable features on a phase head (C, v) in a more efficient and economical way, and it happens automatically as long as a derivation converges. To put it another way, while FI from v to Asp is otherwise spontaneous, it is blocked in (34), for it leads to a derivational crash. Instead, v = haKR/suJP may not transmit any of its features to Asp and v itself enters into a probe-goal relationship, so all of its features can be valued.
In summary, when an English HV takes an object in non-literal or idiomatic interpretations, FI from v = haKR/suJP to Asp may not occur. As a result, the English VO order is maintained in KE and JE CS.
4.3. VO with an English Light Verb in Literal Interpretation
The results from the CS judgment task (
Figure 3) shows that the occurrence of VO order with an English LV in literal interpretation (
i.e.,
have a small head) is 46% for KE CS (and 36% for JE CS). At first glance, this seems to suggest that OV and VO orders are more or less equally distributed in KE CS. However, as reported in
Section 3.1.2, a main effect of verb type (heavy
vs. light verbs) was found, revealing a higher preference of VO order with LVs than HVs in literal interpretations, which should be accounted for. In addition, an item-based analysis suggests that, with a subset of the LVs included in (19), such as
have,
get, and
keep, the preference for VO order was exceptionally high in relation to literal interpretations, around 80% or above, exhibiting a stark contrast with HVs in literal interpretations, most of which were strongly preferred (more than 90%) in the OV order. Thus, LVs seem to behave very differently from HVs. On the other hand, some of the LVs in (19), such as
hold, instead exhibited patterns that were similar to HVs, where OV was the preferred word order in KE and JE CS, suggesting that they are close to HVs, and not LVs, and are base-generated as V in such cases.
Based on the above patterns, I conclude that true LVs, such as
have,
get, and
keep are distinguished from HVs, and VO order is derived with LVs in literal interpretations. In the following, I will discuss how VO order is derived with English LVs in KE and JE CS. In
Section 4.7, item-based analyses of LVs in (19) are provided.
With the assumption that the English LV lexicalizes Asp in place, the fact that preverbal object placement does not happen when an English LV is code-switched can be explained. In (34), for example,
have, qua, LV lexicalizes Asp, and it prevents Asp from inheriting probing features from
v =
haKR/suJP. FI will take place successfully if and only if the functional head of the complement of the phase head is empty (
cf. Richards 2007) [
71]. If the functional head is already equipped with idiosyncratic lexical properties, such as being filled by a lexical item such as an English LV, for instance, FI does not occur. As a consequence, none of
v’s features are discharged to Asp, lexicalized by an English LV.
When English LVs lexicalize Asp, the V head remains empty in (35), whose status may be questioned. The existence of null lexical verbs has been argued in many languages (e.g., in Slovenian and in various Germanic languages, such as Dutch, German, West Flemish, Luxemburgish, Afrikaans, Swedish, Swiss German [
72,
73]. This supports the validity of the null V in (35). It is not clear whether empty verbs need formal licensing, as argued by van Riemsdijk [
73], or whether they do not need formal licensing, as claimed by Marušič and Žaucer [
72]; more research is needed to understand the nature of empty verbs. I will leave the topic for future research.
4.4. VO with an English Light Verb in Non-Literal Interpretation
When an English LV takes an object in a non-literal or idiomatic interpretation (e.g.,
have a big mouth), VO order was preferred both in KE and JE CS (69% and 72%, respectively), similar to non-literal phrases with an English HV. As shown in
Figure 4, VP idioms with both HVs and LVs were judged less flexible than non-idiomatic phrases, thus the A
spP headed by the LV
have in (35), for instance, is inflexible, making object extraction difficult. In (36), the Asp head filled by an English LV does not inherit probing features from
v =
haKR/
suJP.
Both English idioms with a HV and a LV in KE and JE CS were preferred in VO order alike, yet the syntactic derivations for deriving VO order with a HV and an LV slightly differ from each other under the current proposal that English HVs merge under V and LVs merge as Asp. With a VP idiom including a HV, Asp can in principle inherit
v’s features and value
v’s features as soon as possible. However, FI is blocked because of the failure of object shift caused by the inflexibility of the VP idiom (
Section 4.2). With the idiom with an LV, on the other hand, FI cannot happen from
v to lexically filled Asp by an English LV. What is common between VP idioms with a HV and an LV is that VO order is derived in KE and JE CS, which is accounted for by no FI from
v =
haKR/
suJP to Asp, resulting in the failure of object shift.
4.5. Either OV or VO with an English Light Verb in a Light Verb Construction
In an LVC in which an English HV takes an object (e.g., play a trick), the average percentage of VO order preference was 41% in KE CS (and 47% in JE CS). While OV order was slightly preferred with several items (i.e., deliver a talk, deliver a speech, reach an agreement, pass sentence, play a joke, and pay a compliment), the majority of the items were not biased towards either order, ranging from 36% to 64% VO preference, in KE CS. I now proceed to explain why both OV and VO orders are possible with a LVC with a HV.
In an LVC with a HV, the verb may have a choice between merging as V, following its lexical root, and merging as Asp, based on its “light” use in an LVC. If the verb maintains its identity as a lexical verb and merges under V despite its light use in an LVC, OV order is derived; the null-headed Asp inherits [uϕ, uCaseEPP] from v = haKR/suJP and triggers the object to move to its specifier position, resulting in OV order.
Alternatively, the verb may merge as Asp, following its function similar to the LV in an LVC, despite the fact that it is originally a lexical verb. If the verb merges as Asp, FI from v = haKR/suJP to the lexically filled Asp does not take place, and the underlying VO order maintains.
Thus, the proposal that the English HV in an LVC may merge either as V or as Asp accounts for the results from the KE and JE CS judgment task, showing that the preferred word order of most examples was not biased towards either OV or VO order and both orders are possible derivations in an LVC with a HV.
4.6. VO with an English Light Verb in a Light Verb Construction
In an LVC where an English LV takes an object (e.g., have a look), the average percentage of VO order preference was 69% in KE CS and 71% in JE CS. The proposal that an English LV is base-generated as Asp correctly accounts for the surface VO-ha/su order; FI from v = haKR/suJP to the lexically filled Asp is blocked, and the object remains in situ, as illustrated in (39).
4.7. Reanalyzing English Light Verbs
Overall, the study found LVs and HVs behave differently in CS. Except for idiomatic phrases, a code-switched phrase with an English HV was preferred in OV order, whereas with an English LV it was generally preferred in VO order in all phrase types, including in an LVC and in a literal interpretation. Under the proposal that English LVs and HVs merge under Asp and V, respectively, this is a welcome result. However, there were instances in which OV order was preferred with an LV. Assuming that LVs lexicalize the Asp head, this is unexpected. Especially, the strong OV order preference for some code-switched phrases with an LV suggests that the verb is instead used as a HV and base-generated as V in those cases. In what follows, detailed analyses of the verbs
keep and
hold are provided based on the results from the KE CS judgment task. For other LVs investigated in this study, readers are asked to refer to previous work by Shim ([
9]).
4.7.1. Keep
Similar to
have and
get, a phrase with the verb
keep was also mostly preferred in VO order in KE CS 5 out of 6 times, suggesting that
keep is also an LV (see
Table 1). However, there was one instance that had a noticeably different pattern.
Not only was the phrase keep your receipt preferred in the OV order, in contrast to the predominance of VO order in the case of the verb keep, but OV order was also unanimously favored by all KE and JE bilingual speakers. While both keep your receipt and keep a respectful manner are interpreted literally, it is only the former that was preferred in OV order. What makes the verb keep in keep your receipt very different from keep a respectful manner and other instances?
In (19), the verb keep was proposed to be an LV, representing keep = caus + be. While this analysis can represent the meaning of the verb keep in most phrases, including keep a respectful manner, it does not seem to convey the meaning of the verb in keep your receipt, in which the verb is interpreted as ‘to retain or to save’, suggesting keep in keep your receipt is not as light as keep in other examples. And this contrast is reflected in OV and VO order preference in CS, respectively.
The difference in relation to keep in keep your receipt compared to other uses of the verb is not just limited to its semantics. The verb keep in keep your receipt arguably selects a secondary predicate, as in keep your receipt with you. I propose that the verb keep in keep your receipt takes a small clause headed by a null preposition as its complement, shown in (40).
In (40) the verb
keep merges under V rather than Asp, and takes a null-headed small-clause complement, in which
your receipt is the subject of the null predicate. What is crucial is that
keep base-generates as V, not Asp, based on the fact that a small clause is selected only by V, but nothing else (
cf. Kayne [
74]). Thus, the verb
keep here is not an LV but a HV taking a small-clause complement and OV order is derived in KE and JE CS.
4.7.2. Hold
In (19), the verb
hold was included as an English LV, decomposed into
caus + be, which is also proposed as the structure for a synonymous verb,
keep. However, the results from the CS judgment test revealed a big contrast between these two verbs. While
keep behaved as an LV in most cases, exhibiting the verb phrase with the inclusion of
keep was preferred in VO order in CS, except when it was used as a HV meaning ‘to retain’, OV order prevailed with
hold in both KE and JE CS, shown in
Table 2.
The contrast between hold and the rest of the verbs classified as LVs in the study highlights the word order contrast in an LVC; none of the LVCs with other LVs were favored in OV order, whereas the two hold LVCs (hold a conversation, hold a debate) were preferred in OV order, similar to the patterns observed in a number of LVCs with various HVs. This suggests that hold is not an LV but a HV.
While
hold and
keep are usually considered to be synonyms, Levin [
75] makes a subtle distinction between
hold verbs (e.g.,
clasp,
clutch,
grasp,
handle,
hold,
wield) and
keep verbs (e.g.,
hoard,
keep,
leave,
store); while the former describes “prolonged contact with an entity”, the latter relates to “maintaining something at some location” (pp. 145–146). Along these lines, while the decomposed structure,
caus + be, can represent the meaning of the light verb
keep, maintaining something, it may not reflect the extra semantic information contributed by
hold.
Although I have no further insights to offer as to how such subtle differences among diverse near-synonymous verbs are encoded in the argument structure, the heavy vs. light distinction of verbs is not only a matter of lexical semantics, but is reflected in the syntactic structure, as evidenced by word order variation in CS. This is certainly a very interesting finding presented by the present CS research, one that would not perhaps have emerged from the study of monolingual data alone.